Readjust, don't reinvent

They lose, and immediately the chorus begins: Republicans must change or die. A rump party of white America, it must adapt to evolving demographics or forever be the minority.

The only part of this that is even partially true regards Hispanics. They should be a natural Republican constituency: striving immigrant community, religious, Catholic, family-oriented, and socially conservative (on abortion, for example).

The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigration. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. He could never successfully tack back.

For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Support a border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe - full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement.

I've always been of the "enforcement first" school, with the subsequent promise of legalization. I still think it's the better policy. But many Hispanics fear there will be nothing beyond enforcement. So, promise amnesty right up front. Secure the border with guaranteed legalization to follow on the day the four border-state governors affirm that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle.

Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016. It would transform the landscape. He'd win the Hispanic vote. Yes, win it. A problem fixable with a single policy initiative is not structural. It is solvable.

The other part of the current lament is that the Republican Party consistently trails among blacks, young people, and (unmarried) women. (Republicans are up 7 percentage points among married women.) But this is not for reasons of culture, identity, or even affinity. It is because these constituencies tend to be more politically liberal, and Republicans are the conservative party.

The country doesn't need two liberal parties. Yes, Republicans need to weed out candidates who talk like morons about rape. But this doesn't mean the country needs two pro-choice parties, either. In fact, more women are pro-life than are pro-choice. The problem for Republicans is not policy, but delicacy - speaking about culturally sensitive and philosophically complex issues with reflection and prudence.

Additionally, the doomsayers warn, Republicans must change not just ethnically, but ideologically. Back to the center. Moderation above all!

More nonsense. Tuesday's exit polls showed that by an 8-point margin, Americans believe government does too much. And Republicans are the party of smaller government. Moreover, onrushing economic exigencies - crushing debt, unsustainable entitlements - will make the argument for smaller government increasingly unassailable.

So why give it up? Republicans lost the election not because they advanced a bad argument, but because they advanced a good argument not well enough. Romney ran a solid campaign, but he is by nature a Northeastern moderate. He sincerely adopted the new conservatism but still spoke it as a second language.

More Ford '76 than Reagan '80, Romney is a transitional figure, both generationally and ideologically. Behind him, the party has an extraordinarily strong bench. In Congress: Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, (the incoming) Ted Cruz, and others. And the governors: Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, and Nikki Haley, plus former Gov. Jeb Bush and the retiring Mitch Daniels. (Gov. Christie is currently in rehab.)

They were all either a little too young or just not personally prepared to run in 2012. No longer. There may not be a Reagan among them, but this generation of rising leaders is philosophically rooted and politically fluent in the new constitutional conservatism.

There's no need for radical change. The other party thinks it owns the demographic future; counter that in one stroke by fixing the Latino problem. Do not, however, abandon the party's philosophical anchor. In a world where European social democracy is imploding before our eyes, the party of smaller, more modern government owns the ideological future.

Romney is a good man who made the best argument he could, and nearly won. He would have made a superb chief executive, but he (like the Clinton machine) could not match President Obama in the darker arts of public persuasion.

The answer to Romney's failure is not retreat, not aping the Democrats' patchwork pandering. It is to make the case for restrained, rational, reformed government in stark contradistinction to Obama's increasingly unsustainable big-spending, big-government paternalism.

Republicans: No whimpering. No whining. No reinvention when none is needed. Do conservatism, but do it better. There's a whole generation of leaders ready to do just that.